Saturday, July 10, 2010

WTF Sparkly What Now?

I think she’s on to something here---feminists look at the patriarchy that Twilight serves up and we wrinkle our noses in disdain. But it’s still absolutely a more fun and exciting form of patriarchy than the one where you don’t have awesome sex and have to cook all the time, and there’s never any exciting adventures at all. Being the passive victim of exciting adventures is better than being the passive victim of your boring ass ordinary life.

4 comments:

Except that Bella doesn't have sex until the last book and she cooks ALL the time, for every man who enters her home. I'm not sure that the promise of a husband who doesn't eat and awesome sex can compete with 3 1/2 books of cooking and no sex. But I totally buy that "Being the passive victim of exciting adventures is better than being the passive victim of your boring ass ordinary life."

It's just that there are many better-written books that provide the same escape and have less-simpering and much stronger heroines. So I still don't understand why Twilight. Except, I guess, that is it's a romance novel for people who don't want to read about sex.

Also, isn't it true that she and Edward only have sex one time? (I only read the first Twilight book.)

So...maybe it's the lure of no sex and no cooking? I mean no eventual cooking? And no babies? She *can't* have babies, I mean, it's not her *fault* she can't breed? (Given that S.M. is LDS and required to put out baby after baby and pretend to love it?)

But she does have a baby in book 4. And it's the most powerful vampire of all, and Jacob's soulmate. And she's the most beautiful vampire of all. And it's the first vamp baby ever--Bella is special because she can breed.

I haven't forced myself to read book 4, but I think they have sex more than once. I think the first time she's all bruised and battered and she feels rejected because she's afraid she wasn't good enough, so then they have to have magical sex after that--in the ocean off a deserted island no less.